Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels Project Environmental Impact Statement (March 2020) Review

Norway House Cree Nation – Preliminary Comments and Information Requests

Submitted to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada June 2020

______

Context of Preliminary Comments and Questions Regarding the EIS

The LMLSM Outlet Channels Project environmental impact assessment process was begun under CEAA 2012 and is being assessed according to that legislation. Manitoba Infrastructure initially submitted an EIS to IAAC in the fall of 2019. It was found to be deficient in meeting the Guidelines in several respects. Some changes were made and the EIS was re-submitted in March 2020 and accepted by IAAC for review. However, little to no progress had been made on consultation with Norway House Cree Nation or several other potentially affected Indigenous Peoples during that time. Relevant sections of the EIS remain unchanged and deficient.

The new Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) initiated a Technical Advisory Group to enable direct discussion with technical representatives of affected communities. That process began with one meeting in June 2019. The next meeting was held a full year later in June 2020. The most recent meeting provided a brief overview of sections of the EIS. Little new information was shared by Manitoba Infrastructure during that online meeting. The comments and questions below are therefore based primarily on the EIS as submitted.

Due to the global pandemic situation, it is currently not possible to hold in person community meetings, meet together with Elders, leadership and other resource users in the communities. Meetings with IACC or MI can only be held over the phone or online. Technical advisors hired by the communities cannot conduct visits with community members or travel to field sites. It is important to recognize that it is not possible to complete adequate engagement with the membership under these conditions.

NHCN is providing comments and questions at this time on this version of the EIS with the expectation that further accommodation will be made in the timelines for this EA given the deficiencies in the EIS and the constraints imposed by the Covid-19 situation.

Please note that there is some overlap in the comments and questions included in the table below due to the structure of the EIS and the complexity of the issues. If clarification around any of the specific questions is required, this can be discussed further.

Overarching Concerns with the EIS

Some of the predominant issues and concerns with this EIS include the following:

1. One objective of an environmental assessment is to achieve an in depth understanding of a proposed project and the effects it may have on existing values and rights. To this end, the EIS Guidelines, the Treaties, the Canadian Constitution Act, as well as basic respect within the context of efforts towards reconciliation require that a meaningful level of engagement, consultation and accommodation take place with Indigenous people when governments choose to pursue policies that have irreversible effects on large portions of traditional territory. This has clearly not been accomplished in this EA process to date. This is acknowledged in the EIS however it remains to be seen how this can be rectified.

2. The “significance” of the proposed changes to the landscape need to be understood within the context of the relentless pace of artificial manipulation of the watershed over the past 100 years. This extensive disruption of natural processes has created numerous environmental and cultural effects. The EIS Guidelines ask that measures of the significance of additional changes be developed in collaboration with Indigenous people and must be expressed from the perspective of Indigenous people in an EIS. This has clearly not been fully accomplished for this EIS.

3. The scope of the assessment and the material presented is too narrow for a reader to adequately understand the context of flood control systems in southern Manitoba and the place of the proposed LMLSM outlet channels in that system.

4. The EIS must provide information that is transparent and comprehensive to explain and acknowledge the context of this project proposal and the relative costs and benefits to different groups of people and elements of the natural environment. The Manitoba Government has decided that this project is necessary and is the best solution to flooding problems within the current context of watershed manipulation, land use and property rights, and the economy of Manitoba. Our review of the material provided to date has concluded that the EIS does not provide a full explanation of the project justification. It is also deficient in data and information to predict and assess many environmental effects, effectiveness of mitigation measures and residual effects.

Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels Project - Technical Review Information Requirements March 2020

Reference Expert Dept. or EIS Guideline EIS Reference Context and Rationale The Proponent is Required to … IR# group Reference

Engagement and Consultation with Indigenous Peoples NHCN - NHCN Part 1 Key EA Methodology The EA process is expected to help to ensure meaningful public For the record, can the federal government provide a clear, 01 Considerations participation. Given the complexity and extensive footprint of this large written rationale to explain why CEAA (IAAC) did not refer infrastructure project, the level of concern already expressed by this project to an independent Review Panel. 2. Guiding Indigenous Treaty rights holders, and the long-term environmental Principles consequences, this project should have been referred to a Review Panel. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 It is understood that measures to address the flooding problems around Lake St. Martin are overdue and that solutions must be found. It is also Engagement understood that there is a great deal of controversy around these flood with control projects. Indigenous groups However, attempting to rush the EA process, especially by failing to appropriately engage Indigenous people throughout the region who are “meaningful affected by flood control infrastructure, and avoiding meaningful participation” consultation, will not fulfill the purpose of a federal environmental assessment. NHCN – NHCN Part 1 Key EA Methodology The proponent is expected to work with potentially affected Indigenous An explanation is required from IAAC as to why the EIS was 02 Considerations groups to establish an engagement approach and integrate Indigenous accepted for review when it is clear that engagement with knowledge into the assessment of environmental effects. all Indigenous groups has not been adequate to inform the Section 2.3 This is meant to be done early in the process for the purposes of assessment. Engagement preparing the EIS. with Indigenous This has not been done for NHCN, nor for many other Indigenous groups. groups There has been no engagement approach established with NHCN. An information meeting was held in Thompson on November 13, 2019 with several groups including NHCN, however no engagement approach was established.

NHCN – NHCN Part 1 Key EA Methodology The political context is challenging due to the history and conflicting Explain whether the engagement approach pursued by MI 03 Considerations interests, however an engagement process must allow the time to with NHCN and other Indigenous groups has met the intent thoroughly discuss the overall context of the project, what questions are and specific requirements of CEAA 2012 and the EIS Section 2.3 necessary to investigate for the EIS, and how conclusions are reached. Guidelines. Engagement with Lack of adequate process and time leads to frustration and poor Indigenous communication. The proponent has approached the limited discussions groups which have taken place with NHCN by presenting simplified conclusions regarding potential effects.

For example, during the November 13, 2019 Information meeting held in Thompson, MI representatives stated that “fish would move freely through the channels; moose and deer would move freely; and there will be no effects on the Nelson River.”

It appears that the approach taken was to try to reassure the attendees at the meeting that there is no need to worry, rather than having a fulsome discussion about the challenges of an EA process and the complexity of predicting long-term effects.

NHCN - NHCN Part 1 Key 10.0 INDIGENOUS The EIS was prepared without integrating any indigenous knowledge or 04 Considerations PEOPLES traditional land use of NHCN into the assessment or perspectives on Given the acknowledged lack of engagement with NHCN for mitigation measures and predicted residual effects. this EIS, and the current situation with the global covid-19 2.3 10.2.2 Existing pandemic, can the IAAC explain how we can collaborate to Engagement Conditions for The EIS reports some of the preliminary questions and concerns develop a plan to complete this EIS appropriately, followed with Traditional Land expressed about the project by NHCN but does not respond to these in a by a full EIS review? Indigenous and Resource Use comprehensive way. groups Confirm that consideration for the fact that in-person 10.2.2.4 Existing The Guidelines state: community meetings cannot currently take place to discuss 4. Conditions by “The proponent will incorporate into the EIS the community knowledge the engagement and consultation processes will inform a PREPARATION Indigenous Group and Indigenous knowledge to which it has access or that is acquired revised timeline for the EA process. AND through public participation and engagement with Indigenous groups, in PRESENTATIO keeping with appropriate ethical standards and obligations of N OF THE confidentiality. The proponent will engage in a respectful dialogue with ENVIRONMEN Indigenous groups about the collection and use of Indigenous knowledge and enter into agreements where necessary regarding the use of

TAL IMPACT information during and after the EA. The proponent should collaborate STATEMENT with Indigenous groups to ensure, where possible, that the Indigenous knowledge is incorporated into the EIS in a way that appropriate for the 4.2.2. Indigenous group.” Community knowledge For the section about Norway House Cree Nation in Indigenous Peoples and and traditional land use, the EIS states: Indigenous knowledge “Information on traditional land use was not located; however, Norway House Cree Nation has expressed concerns that Lake Winnipeg has changed over time with more sediments, increased turbidity, blue green algae and invasive species. Residents suspect that additional channel projects may aggravate these changes and affect water supply for Norway House Cree Nation (Manitoba Infrastructure 2018b).”

Norway House Cree Nation pursues many forms of traditional land use in the north basin of Lake Winnipeg and Playgreen Lake which are within the RAA as defined in the EIS and in the Nelson River which was not included in the RAA.

The EIS acknowledges that: “While most of these communities had received some level of engagement with MI, several communities are still in the preliminary phases of engagement and the amount of information available is less than those who have been engaged for several years.”

The IAAC accepted the EIS for review and is currently following the review process timelines in CEAA 2012. NHCN has been told that there will be more opportunities for engagement as we move through this EA process. The suggestion is that this will make up for the lack of early engagement. The public comment period and TAG meetings are opportunities to contribute to the EA, however they are constrained by time and resources.

The fact that we are experiencing unusual circumstances due to the pandemic presents additional constraints. During the EIS review stage, there can be no meetings in the communities to discuss this project proposal in person. This is a severe limitation on our ability to pursue good communication and adequate Indigenous engagement in this environmental assessment process.

NHCN – NHCN Part 1 Key EA Methodology The Guidelines state that the proponent is expected to engage with Explain the context of the NFA and subsequent agreements 05 Considerations potentially affected Indigenous groups starting as early as possible in the and why there has been no official consultation with Nelson project planning process to: River Indigenous signatories under the provisions regarding Section 2.3 future major developments that affect this watershed. Engagement “• fulfil the statutory obligations of CEAA 2012 to assess environmental with effects of the proposed Project on Aboriginal peoples; and Indigenous groups • Assist the Agency fulfilling the Crown’s constitutional obligations to consult with potentially impacted Indigenous groups on potential impacts to potential or established Aboriginal or Treaty rights.”

The Crown is expected to consult on major projects affecting Treaty lands and accommodate concerns when possible. One concern is that people be treated with respect and be engaged in transparent and collaborative dialogue.

The Northern Flood Agreement is an important treaty that was developed in response to serious adverse effects on the Nelson River due to hydroelectric production. The NFA and subsequent agreements with individual Nations set out obligations for meaningful consultation on future developments that will further affect the Nelson River. NHCN – NHCN Part 1 Key EA Methodology The Guidelines state that: 06 Considerations Present the results of discussions with Indigenous groups “After having established the technically and economically feasible including NHCN regarding the predicted residual effects of 2.3 mitigation measures, the EIS will present any residual environmental the project and associated projects and Indigenous Engagement effects of the project on the VCs identified in Section 6.3 above. For those perspectives on these residual effects for each VC. with VCs related to effects of changes to the environment on Aboriginal Indigenous peoples, the proponent must discuss the residual effects with the This discussion must document perspectives on the VC’s groups Indigenous groups identified in Part 2, Section 7 of these guidelines prior that were not included in the assessment submitted to date to submitting the EIS. The residual effects, even if very small or deemed such as the cumulative effects on the cultural landscape, 7.5. insignificant will be described.” and the psychological effects of the artificial control over Significance of the rivers and lakes. residual The Guidelines further state that: effects “For those predicted adverse effects that relate to effects of the changes to the environment on Aboriginal peoples, the proponent will consider the views of the Indigenous groups in the determination of the definitions of the significance criteria. The EIS will document the terms used to describe the level of significance.”

NHCN were not involved in any discussions that reviewed the determination of significance criteria. How is it possible to evaluate whether the residual effects are significant to Indigenous people when there is inadequate consultation during the development of the EIS?

From the perspective of NHCN the magnitude, geographic extent, timing, duration, and frequency of serious adverse effects related to the Manitoba flood control system as a whole and the way in which flood waters are channeled faster into the Nelson River have a high level of significance. These effects are irreversible as long as these structures continue to operate.

Adding new structures to the system creates high levels of stress, increased uncertainty, and frustration when the effects of the existing components continue unabated and compensation and accommodations are insufficient. The ecological and social context of this situation from the perspective of NHCN and other Indigenous groups is essential to understand when evaluating this project proposal and ways to mitigate further cumulative adverse effects.

Environmental Assessment Methodology NHCN - NHCN 1.2. Project 3.0 Project NHCN continue to have concerns about the exclusion of the access road 07 Overview Description from the EA process under CEAA 2012. MI and IAAC

The Guidelines state that: “The EIS will describe the project, key project Explain the complete rationale, including economic, components and associated activities, scheduling details, the timing of regulatory, and political factors for including the access each phase of the project and other key features. If the project is part of a road in earlier descriptions this project and excluding it larger sequence of projects, the EIS will outline the larger context.” from the current environmental assessment process.

It is understood that the conversion of the access road to an all-season Discuss whether inclusion of the access road in the road was excluded from the EA process under CEAA 2012 with approval cumulative effects assessment achieves the same from IAAC, as MI argued that this work was planned independently from objectives as an evaluation of the project as a whole under the LMLSM outlet channels project and would be done regardless of CEAA 2012. whether this project went ahead. This argument appears to be inconsistent with earlier project descriptions included in baseline studies done in anticipation of an EA for this project.

For example, in a baseline report done on heritage resources, the entire all-season access road connecting the proposed LMOC and the LSMOC is clearly described and mapped as part of the overall outlet channels project (Petch, V. 2017. Heritage Resources Characterization Study: Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels and Proposed All Season Access Road. Northern Lights Heritage Services)

The access road is also described as part of the project in the section on cumulative effects assessment. The EIS states that: “The upgrade of the Lake St. Martin access road and the development of Project-specific quarries are proposed in order to service the Project and will be developed by Manitoba Infrastructure or in conjunction with a collaborative third party.”

The fact that the access road was not registered as part of the project for the assessment under CEAA 2012 does not alter the clear and direct relationship of the road to the outlet channels project.

It is understood that if this project is considered to be an emergency, or a necessity, then excluding the road from the more comprehensive federal EA process could speed up the construction timeline. Construction on the road has now already begun well in advance of this EA process.

The access road is included in the discussion of cumulative effects and indicates numerous adverse effects on traditional land and resource use. As with many other large projects, approving the construction of access roads and other supporting infrastructure in advance of the environmental assessment of a major project prejudices an objective assessment of the project and creates additional pressure to proceed.

If this project is needed to mitigate adverse effects of the existing flood control infrastructure in combination with flood vulnerabilities, and the decision has been taken that it must be expedited, then this should be clearly explained in the Project Description. Not to do so fails to meet the intent of an environmental assessment process.

If this project is to respect the Indigenous world view that recognizes interconnectedness across the landscape, then the regulatory processes must not work to circumvent a wholistic understanding of this suite of projects which are clearly related. Even if a situation is politically

controversial, attempting to obfuscate the decisions being made is not going to improve relationships going forward.

Decision-making around large public infrastructure projects must be transparent and respect Treaty rights.

NHCN – NHCN Scope of the 4.0 Subsection 19(1) of CEAA 2012 specifies the factors to be considered in Provide more comprehensive descriptions of proposed 08 Environmental ENVIRONMENTAL the EA including mitigation measures that are technically and mitigation and monitoring programs. Assessment ASSESSMENT economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse APPROACH environmental effects of the project. (Specific topic areas will be addressed in more detail in the Section 3.2 IR’s that follow). Factors to be 4.5.1.3 Mitigation In many cases throughout the EIS, mitigation measures are only vaguely considered of Environmental described. There is not enough information to determine whether the Effects measures would be technically and economically feasible, how effective they may be, what the residual effects might be, and the level of uncertainty associated with the predictions and suggested mitigation measures.

It is also important the proposed mitigation measures be thoroughly reviewed in collaboration with affected Indigenous groups to understand whether they will be deemed to be sufficient and better understand the significance of residual effects.

NHCN – NHCN Scope of the 4.0 The Guidelines require that: Explain why NHCN was not involved in scoping the “valued 09 Environmental ENVIRONMENTAL components”. Assessment ASSESSMENT “The list of VCs presented in the EIS will be completed according to the APPROACH evolution and design of the project and reflect the knowledge acquired Section 3.2.2 through public consultation and engagement with Indigenous groups.” Valued 4.4.1 Step 1: Components Selection of Valued NHCN was not involved in scoping the valued components. If they had to be Components been, there may have been more attention paid to the ecological examined integrity of the watershed more broadly and the Regional Assessment Area would have been larger.

NHCN - NHCN Scope of the 4.0 The proponent is encouraged to consult with the Agency, federal and Explain why the Portage Diversion and its operation is not 10 Environmental ENVIRONMENTAL provincial government departments and agencies, local government and included within the spatial and temporal boundaries of the Assessment ASSESSMENT Indigenous groups, and take into account public comments when defining EIS given the level of concern expressed about this by the APPROACH the spatial and temporal boundaries used in the EIS. public and Indigenous groups, and the potential for the Section 3.2.3 operation of the LMLSM channels to influence the Spatial and 4.4 STEPS 1 TO 4: The proponent was asked to document the main issues and comments operation of the Portage Diversion. temporal SCOPING THE raised during the engagement activities by each group and the boundaries ASSESSMENT proponent’s responses. Address downstream concerns in more detail in the context of further engagement and consultation processes with 4.4.3.1 Spatial The operation of the Portage Diversion, for example, was raised NHCN and other downstream Indigenous people. Boundaries numerous times by several groups including NHCN as an issue of concern in relation to the proposed project, existing conditions of the lakes and future operations. The EIS does not provide a comprehensive discussion of this relationship. It provides a weak explanation for excluding it from consideration in this assessment.

The effect of the channels and the operation of the flood control system as a whole on downstream water courses including the Nelson River was expressed as a concern. The EIS presents an analysis which suggests that the effect on the Nelson River would be minimal but not zero. The EIS then provides no further discussion on downstream effects.

If the spatial boundaries had been scoped more thoroughly with downstream Indigenous groups, more attention would have been paid in the EIS to investigating the potential direct and cumulative effects of further changes to the southern Manitoba flood control system.

Project Overview, Project Purpose and Justification NHCN - NHCN Section 2.2 It is important that the EIS Summary, additional EIS volumes, and public 11 Part 2 Content Purpose of the presentations detailing the project description and purpose provide a Explain the broader context of the current flood protection Section 1.2 Project complete project description and justification including the broader strategy being pursued by Manitoba Infrastructure. Project context of flood control strategies in the province. Overview 3.0 Project a. Is it following the recommendations outlined in Description The EIS Summary and Vol. 1 describe the larger context to some extent, the 2016 KGS Report? In what ways does the Section 2 but do not provide the reader with a complete understanding of the current strategy deviate from the proposed Project 3.1 Introduction flood control strategy for the region as a whole. strategy and recommendations? Justification Summary In describing the project, the EIS Guidelines require that: b. How does the proposed LMLSM outlet channels 3.1 PROJECT project fit into the current flood protection JUSTIFICATION strategy? Discuss the extent to which the existence 10

“The EIS will describe the project, key project components and associated of the LMLSM channels will facilitate the activities, scheduling details, the timing of each phase of the project and construction and operation of other upstream other key features. If the project is part of a larger sequence of projects, flood control works in the future. the EIS will outline the larger context.” c. Discuss the extent to which the purpose of the The Guidelines further specify: outlet channels is essentially to mitigate the effects of past and future flood control works on “The EIS will describe the purpose of the project by providing the the Assiniboine River and the Fairford River. rationale for the project, explaining the background, the problems or opportunities that the project is intended to satisfy and the stated d. Explain the status of upgrades to the Portage objectives from the perspective of the proponent. If the objectives of the Diversion and plans for the future. project are related to broader private or public sector policies, plans or programs, this information will also be included. The water regulation e. Provide a detailed explanation from an and flood management context of the Project will be described such that engineering perspective about whether increased the need for and justification of the Project as proposed is explained. The capacity of the Portage Diversion described in the interaction of the project with Manitoba’s integrated water control and 2016 KGS report would be possible without the flood mitigation network will be described.” LMLSM channels to avoid exacerbating flooding in Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin. For example, the Sections in the EIS on Project Overview and Project Justification do not directly mention the Portage Diversion or explain the f. The 2016 KGS study suggests that only the LMLSM broader context of the flood protection strategy in southern Manitoba. outlet channels project would require a federal Although the Portage Diversion is addressed to some extent in the EIS in environmental assessment, and not the upgrades other sections in terms of its past influence on flood conditions on Lake to the Portage Diversion or the works Manitoba and Lake St. Martin, the relationship between the proposed recommended to increase flood capacity of the outlet channels and continued operation of the Portage Diversion and Assiniboine River. Discuss the reasons for this and potential upgrades is not clearly explained. whether this is accurate at this time.

The EIS states: g. Explain how the operation of the outlet channels “Although the proposed Project will work collaboratively with existing could influence the operation of the Portage flood protection infrastructure throughout the Assiniboine River and Lake Diversion in future under different flood scenarios. Manitoba drainage basins, its objective relies on independent operation to relieve flooding in areas that remain vulnerable. As such, the Project is The influence of the outlet channels is modelled in not considered to be an extension or expansion of other flood control information presented to the public during open measures constructed in Manitoba.” house sessions in a slide entitled: “Annual Portage Diversion Peak Discharge with and Without New The future operation of the LMLSM channels may be considered to be Outlet Channels”. physically independent, however it will not be independent of the https://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/wms/lmblsmoutlets/c management of other flood control infrastructure upstream and onsultations/pdf/openhouse/portage_diversion_ju downstream as this will influence to some extent whether the channels ne_2018.pdf need to be used or not and for how long during high water periods.

The results suggest that little difference in The EIS states: operations of the Portage Diversion is expected in “The Portage Diversion was completed in 1970 and, when in use, diverts future with the LMLSM outlet channels in place. flow from the Assiniboine River into Lake Manitoba. From 1970 to 2003, However there seems to be some significant the Portage Diversion contributed an average annual volume of discrepancy in the data provided for peak annual 304,400,000 m3 from the Assiniboine River to Lake Manitoba (LMRRAC diversion flows (cfs) in that package of material 2003).” compared to the data set included on the MI website entitled “Portage Diversion in Operation”. The diversion is operated only periodically, however was put into use 44 Please provide some explanation for why the peak times between 1970 and 2019, for periods of between 3 and 126 days, diversion flows are different for many of the years altering the inflow to Lake Manitoba. of operation reported, and some years of operation appear to be missing. We have several questions related to the overall flood control strategy in southern Manitoba from a policy standpoint. Public transparency around h. The 2016 KGS Report recommended a multi-year how each component will rely on other components under various river wetland restoration pilot project for flood flow scenarios is essential. attenuation. Has this been implemented or are there plans to pursue this measure? Past reports including the 2016 KGS Group study explain the proposed LMLSM outlet channels as one component in a recommended three-part i. The KGS Report recommended that designated strategy which emphasized the necessity of a combined approach to flood areas be mapped on Lakes Manitoba, St. address flood vulnerabilities on the Assiniboine River. Other components Martin and Dauphin, and on the Assiniboine River identified as essential to this overall flood mitigation strategy included and that development be restricted in those areas improvements to lower Assiniboine River dikes to increase the river’s to reduce infrastructure vulnerable to flooding. capacity to withstand floods and achieve improved flood protection; and What is the status of that effort? upgrades to increase the capacity of the Portage Diversion. j. The KGS report recommended purchasing lands on To understand the justification for this project and implications for the certain parts of the Assiniboine River floodplain broader region, a more comprehensive explanation of the regional flood instead of trying to protect them. Has this protection context and the strategy Manitoba is implementing is recommendation been pursued to any extent? necessary. k. Provide an update on interprovincial drainage issues that influence Manitoba’s flood protection strategy on the Assiniboine River.

NHCN – NHCN Part 2 Content Section 2.2 12 Section 1.2 Purpose of the Neither the main body of the EIS, nor the Summary provide a full Provide a more comprehensive description of the effect of Project Project explanation of the relationship between the Fairford River Water Control the FRWCS compared to natural conditions on water levels Overview Structure and the changes in water levels on Lake Manitoba and Lake St. and environmental conditions in Lake Manitoba, Lake St. Summary Martin from the natural pre-regulation condition. This is an important Martin, Fairford River and Dauphin River.

Section 2 3.1 PROJECT part of the LMLSM outlet channels project justification since it is in part a This information should also be included in summary Project JUSTIFICATION measure to help mitigate the effects of the FRWCS. information and in all public presentations and discussions. Justification This is explained in the 2016 KGS Group report (p. 659) but is not made sufficiently clear in the EIS.

This information is important for an understanding of the project justification as well as for the consideration of cumulative effects.

NHCN – NHCN 7. Effects Physical The Guidelines state: 13 Assessment Environment Discuss the potential for proposed new flood protection “Should there be the potential for a change to the environment arising as works on the Red River in North Dakota and Minnesota to Other changes Watershed Context a result of a federal decision(s), or changes to the environment on federal influence the flood control system in Manitoba by Section 7.1.11 lands, lands in another province or lands outside Canada, the EIS will incrementally reducing floodplain storage in the watershed, Effect of the include baseline information on the environmental component likely to be and increasing the speed of flood water drainage towards Environment on affected (if this information is not already covered in other subsections of Manitoba. the Project these guidelines).”

Operations This may seem like a very broad scope for an assessment, however any changes in the watershed that could cause a significant alteration of flow patterns could have an indirect effect on the operations of the flood control structures influencing Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin.

The Fargo-Moorhead Diversion Project in North Dakota for example could have an indirect effect on the operation of the LMLSM project.

See: https://fmdiversion.gov/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiznYh_0gQM

Artificial drainage of agricultural lands in North Dakota and Minnesota is continuing at a rapid pace. This in turn influences the vulnerability of downstream urban centers to flood damage.

If the speed of flood run-off along the Red River is further increased, would it increase the use of the floodway through Winnipeg or would there be a noticeable difference? During a large regional flood could it decrease the desirability of directing Assiniboine River flood water

towards Winnipeg and increase the need for operation of the Portage Diversion?

It would be helpful to briefly discuss the potential for these proposed new flood protection works on the Red River in North Dakota and Minnesota to influence the flood control system in Manitoba.

Groundwater and Surface Water NHCN – NHCN 7.2.2. Changes The Guidelines ask the proponent to “carry out modelling as required to Given the uncertainty of climate change and the potential 14 to present and substantiate anticipated changes to groundwater and influence on extreme weather events, discuss further what groundwater, surface water quality and quantity in all project phases and in all is the understanding of minimum flood protection for a surface water, operational scenarios.” 1:200 year flood prediction based on the historical record and fluvial of recent decades compared to the 1:200 year flood morphology It is acknowledged that this task is extremely complex. The risk of estimated for the LMLSM basins based on the full period of flooding must be understood in the context of natural systems as well as record. with the flood control structures and land use practices in place now. Explain what was learned from the “sensitivity analysis” The watershed has a history of extended wet and dry periods. There is conducted by KGS. evidence of frequent high floods occurring in the Assiniboine River long prior to water level monitoring, and of the potential for spring and fall How would the simulation of Portage Diversion operations flooding occurring in the Lake St. Martin area. Climate change may be differ if the hydrometric data from 1970-on were used affecting flood patterns however the data are insufficient to determine instead of the entire period of record? trends. The period of record for hydrometric parameters is still relatively short in the grand scheme of things. Discuss the uncertainty associated with the use of the Portage Diversion in future under the 2015 operations There is therefore a high level of uncertainty in developing flood risk guidelines and the operation of the LMOC and the LSMOC estimates, especially if some of the highest floods on record have given the tendency of the prairie climate to go through occurred recently. sustained wet and dry periods.

The flood control measures being developed are based on estimated flood occurrence rates using the hydrological data for the entire period of record. This has been the subject of some debate given that there have been several high-water years recently over a relatively short period.

NHCN – NHCN 7.2.2. Changes Volume 1 Section For Norway House Cree Nation one of the concerns is whether these 1. Water levels on Playgreen Lake are affected by the 15 to 2.2 Purpose of the flood channels could likely have an effect on downstream water bodies in operation of Jenpeg which responds to Lake groundwater, Project the north basin of Lake Winnipeg, Playgreen Lake and seasonal water Winnipeg water levels. Please provide results of surface water, level and flow patterns on the Nelson River. modelling to estimate the effect on Playgreen Lake and fluvial water levels with and without the LMLSM outlet morphology Modelling conducted by Manitoba Hydro indicated some small increases channels. in peak floods and duration of high-water levels during high water years and some variability in average daily water levels at other times. 2. Provide modelling to estimate the changes in the operations of Jenpeg with and without the LMLSM The conclusion presented in the EIS based on the modelling done by outlet channels. Manitoba Hydro is that the changes in water levels downstream would not be “discernable in the context of existing variable water levels”. 3. Discuss whether the effect of the LMLSM channels Therefore, potential downstream effects were not explored any further routing floodwaters more quickly into Lake in the EIS. Winnipeg could exacerbate erosion, unstable ice conditions, periods of high and low water in the There are numerous problems already created by the existing patterns of narrower river channels downstream even with river regulation for flood control and hydroelectric generation within small increases in peak levels and duration of high NHCN traditional territory. Road access to Norway House during high water conditions. water and low water periods at the ferry crossing over the east channel of the Nelson River is a concern. The health of aquatic and riparian 4. Further discuss areas of uncertainty with these ecosystems is already compromised. Navigation in open water seasons models and the source of uncertainty in model and in winter is negatively affected. People must travel further to gather inputs. plants, hunt and fish. 5. In the water balance modeling results presented, Could the proposed outlet channels project further exacerbate these were the Red River inflows into Lake Winnipeg problems even with small incremental changes in the Lake Winnipeg adjusted for the change in flows through the outflows? Portage Diversion, Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin?

6. The operating rules for Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin are presented and there is no indication that Manitoba Hydro will have influence on regulation of that water way. Please confirm that regulation of the Portage Diversion, Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin releases will be for the purposes of flood control, competent ice formation and limiting fluctuations on the lakes and that Manitoba Hydro will not have influence on flows through this system with the interest of hydroelectric power production.

7. The maximum peak water level occurred on Lake Winnipeg in 2011 and the simulation indicates that Lake Winnipeg would have been 0.07 m higher with the project in place. What is the effect of this additional peak on the erodibility of the shorelines of the lakes and conveyance channels downstream of Lake Winnipeg including, Playgreen Lake, Little Playgreen Lake, Cross Lake, and Sipiwesk Lake?

8. Please have Manitoba Hydro comment on the third key assumption inherent to the water balance model: “No change to Manitoba Hydro’s operation of Lake Winnipeg Regulation when Lake Winnipeg water levels are within the power production range established in the LWR Interim WPA license.” Is it possible to provide simulations for MH operating decisions that would have resulted from the changed inflows due to the project?

9. Given that this project affects the resulting peak discharges and water levels downstream of Lake Winnipeg, will there be a requirement to revisit severance lines along reserve boundaries and what effect will there be on erodible shorelines?

10. Discuss whether it is entirely accurate to conclude that there will be “no discernable effects downstream” when the modelling does indicate at least small increases in peak water levels and duration of high water during a period of record high water levels.

NHCN – NHCN 7.2.2. Changes Appendix 6I Manitoba Hydro conducted modelling to estimate the changes in Lake 16 to IMPACTS OF LAKE Winnipeg and some downstream water bodies that could be caused by Do these data reflect any potential changes that could groundwater, MANITOBA AND the operation of the LMLSM outlet channels during high water years. occur in future in the inflows to Lake Manitoba from the surface water, LAKE ST. Portage Diversion if capacity is increased? and fluvial MARTIN OUTLET The changes with the LMLSM channels are based on data provided by MI. morphology CHANNELS PROJECT ON DOWNSTREAM WATER LEVELS (MANITOBA HYDRO 2019) NHCN – NHCN 7.2.2. Changes Appendix 6K Lake The description of the hydrologic analysis and modelling conducted by MI This may have already been done perhaps in the KGS 2016 17 to Manitoba And Lake to evaluate the impact of the proposed Lake Manitoba and study, however is it possible to run the model excluding the groundwater, St. Martin Outlet Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels on Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin. Portage Diversion flows in order to gain a better surface water, Channels Impacts States that: understanding of the water balance without the diversion? and fluvial on Lake Manitoba morphology And “Portage Diversion flows were estimated prior to 1970 (prior to It would also be useful to run the model without the Lake St. Martin construction) to develop consistent operating regime scenarios. The flows Fairford River Water Control Structure operations influence (Manitoba were estimated by applying the Portage Diversion operating guidelines in if the available data are adequate to estimate pre-FRWCS Infrastructure years prior to construction based on published Assiniboine River flows, periods for Lake St. Martin, Fairford River and Dauphin 2019b) City of Winnipeg river levels, and Lake Manitoba water levels.” River based on stage-discharge relationships.

Water Quality NHCN – NHCN 7.2.2.Changes 7.2.2.2 Overview The Guidelines require that: 18 to of Fish and Fish “the proponent will carry out modelling as required to present and Discuss the knowledge gaps referred to in the Leavitt et al. groundwater, Habitat substantiate anticipated changes to groundwater and surface water 2015 study and the current limitations in understanding surface water, Fish Habitat in the quality and quantity in all project phases and in all operational processes of eutrophication in the Interlakes region, and fluvial RAA scenarios.” including the relative contribution of flood control morphology Lake Manitoba measures. The EIS assesses water quality only in relation to its effect on fish and fish habitat. Indigenous groups and others are interested in the effect that water regulation for flood control may have on water quality. Eutrophication is a serious concern in the region as it changes fish habitat and also the use and enjoyment of water bodies by people living around them.

The EIS states:

“Sediment cores from the south basin of Lake Manitoba show that Lake Manitoba has undergone substantial eutrophication since at least 1890 (Leavitt et al. 2015). This has included a rapid degradation of water quality and a two- to three-fold increase in the late summer abundance of cyanobacteria and chlorophyte algae compared to pre- 1890 levels. Eutrophication was generally most rapid from 1890-1930, although the abundance of chlorophytes, cyanobacteria and total algae continued to increase throughout the 20th century in direct proportion to the growth of the human population in western Canada.

Recent data on primary productivity in Lake Manitoba are limited. However, mean chlorophyll a concentration in the north basin ranged from less than 9 μg/L to 13 μg/L and were determined to be driven by nutrient availability rather than light limitation (Page 2011).”

NHCN – NHCN 7.2.2.Changes 6D.4 REGIONAL The EIS presents data on phosphorus levels measured in different parts Discuss in more detail what is known about the effects of 19 to AND LOCAL of Lake Manitoba during the 2011 flood. Levels were elevated for a the Portage Diversion on phosphorus loading in Lake groundwater, SURFACE WATER period of time in the south basin. However, sampling was limited. Manitoba. Discuss the levels of uncertainty associated with surface water, QUALITY this issue given the level of water quality monitoring and fluvial There have been several studies done on Lake Manitoba that suggest undertaken in Lake Manitoba and the Assiniboine River. morphology that the Portage Diversion is responsible for contributing significant phosphorus inputs during flood conditions. It is not well understood how Discuss what is understood about the contribution of this shallow lake sequesters phosphorus and how the LMLSM Channels phosphorus to Lake Manitoba from the Portage Diversion could facilitate increased export over time into Lake St. Martin and Lake over time, and to what extent available data may limit this Winnipeg. There appears to be limited reference to and discussion of understanding. these studies and levels of uncertainty about this issue in the EIS. Include consideration for potential increased use and capacity of the Portage Diversion in the future. NHCN - NHCN 7.2.2. Changes 6D.4 REGIONAL Please provide additional discussion of the potential effects 20 to AND LOCAL The changes in wetlands that have already occurred in Lake Manitoba of changes in wetlands due to the project in combination groundwater, SURFACE WATER may have reduced wetland function in relation to nutrient cycling. This with other flood control works throughout the region on surface water, QUALITY may be the case not only in the Delta marsh, but also along all riparian phosphorus inputs to water bodies and eutrophication and fluvial areas that have been affected by long-term water level regulation. A processes. morphology Wetland loss and better understanding of the potential pathways of cumulative effects on degradation water quality related to changes to wetlands, including seasonally Discuss data gaps that limit such an analysis. flooded riparian wetlands would be useful for this assessment.

It is understood that this is a complex question and probably cannot be addressed in quantitative terms due to a lack of data.

However, the cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on water quality is an important issue for all elements in the system. For example, in relation to the effects of the EOC the EIS reports that:

“Increased phosphorus levels have also been recorded in wetlands following reductions in tree cover due to flooding (Pinder et al. 2014) with increased levels persisting for several years.”

NHCN - NHCN 7.2.2.Changes 6D.4 REGIONAL The EIS refers to evidence from a study that concluded that the Discuss the levels of uncertainty related to understanding 21 to AND LOCAL Assiniboine River would have naturally overflowed into Lake Manitoba in the potential contribution of nutrients and contaminants groundwater, SURFACE WATER the past under similar water levels that were experienced in 2011 in the overflowing from the Assiniboine River into Lake Manitoba surface water, QUALITY absence of flood control infrastructure and other human development. under natural flood conditions in the past. and fluvial This text suggests that water levels would have been almost as high on morphology Lake Manitoba under similar watershed conditions without the Portage For example, how would the existence of more intact Diversion. wetlands potentially influence nutrient run-off into the waterbodies? This information seems to have been included in order to suggest that the Portage Diversion may make little difference to Lake Manitoba water Discuss the differences in flood levels in the Nelson River levels during a very high flood. during a high-water year similar to 2011 in the absence of flood control infrastructure and other significant human However, it is important to NHCN to understand the environmental development. influence that the Portage Diversion, other flood control infrastructure, and other significant human land uses do have. For example, flushing river flow more quickly through an artificial channel during extreme events can also have a significant influence on water quality parameters compared to over-land flow through naturally vegetated lowlands.

Heritage Resources

NHCN – NHCN 7.1.12 Chapter 11.0 The Guidelines state that: 22 Human CUMULATIVE Present the results of discussions with Indigenous groups in Environment EFFECTS “Heritage resources to be considered will include but not be limited to, the region that focus on cultural landscapes and how to physical objects (e.g. middens, culturally-modified trees, historic define boundaries for the regional and cumulative effects 11.7.2.1 Selection buildings), sites or places (e.g. burial sites, sacred sites, cultural assessment of the LMLSM channels in the context of the of VCs landscapes) and attributes (e.g. language, beliefs).” flood control system in the watershed.

Heritage resources If Indigenous groups had the opportunity to inform the selection of VC’s, the cultural landscape as a whole on a broader regional level would have 19

been understood to be an important VC. People traditionally moved around and used lands over large areas. There are numerous interrelationships among Indigenous groups, and shared places. Direct impacts on special places, conversion and degradation of the lands and waters, and fragmentation of land use access is cumulative and overlaps among groups.

NHCN - NHCN 7.5 Chapter 11.0 a. Provide the results of the Heritage Resources 23 Significance of CUMULATIVE There are several conclusions regarding the significance of residual Impact Assessment when it is complete. It is residual EFFECTS effects on heritage resources have that are based on insufficient expected that such work be done before the effects evidence and determined prior to completion of the necessary studies. conclusion of an EA process under CEAA 2012. 11.7.2.1 Selection 7.6.3. of VCs The EIS states that “cumulative effects were not assessed for heritage b. Explain the comprehensive engagement process Cumulative resources (from Chapter 9, Section 9.6). A preconstruction heritage with Indigenous groups in the region and effects Heritage Resources resources impact assessment of the PDA will be conducted and submitted integrated research approach taken to inform this assessment to the Manitoba Historic Resources Branch (HRB). assessment. 9.6.5.1 Significance of Residual “Approval by the HRB, of an HRIA of the PDA conducted under a valid c. Provide a comprehensive cumulative effects Environmental permit will indicate that there are no residual effects and therefore no assessment of impacts on Heritage resources and Effects from the cumulative effects on heritage resources therefore it is anticipated that the cultural landscape created by the multiple Project the Project has a low potential to remove a known or inadvertently components of the flood control infrastructure in exposed Heritage Resource and will not act cumulatively on change to this watershed. This should include discussion of 9.6.9.3 Cumulative heritage resources.” the probable loss of archaeological sites and other Effects culturally significant sites that has already occurred “Based on the assessment of the proposed effects of the Project on along the Fairford River due to the construction of heritage resources and the proposed mitigation measures, the residual the FRWCS. effects are considered not significant.” d. Present the results of discussions of residual “In the absence of residual effects, there is no pathway for cumulative effects and the significance of residual effects effects and, therefore, no cumulative effects assessment is warranted.” including cumulative effects on heritage resources held with all affected Indigenous peoples. It is not possible to assess the adequacy of the EIS with the level of information provided for the Heritage Resources assessment. The baseline information is acknowledged to be insufficient and conclusions are presented based on work that has not yet been completed. This work must be done in advance of a decision on the adequacy of the EIS according to the Guidelines.

Wetlands, Vegetation and Migratory Birds NHCN - NHCN 7. EFFECTS 8.2 VEGETATION The EIS states that: Explain how Indigenous engagement informed the 24 ASSESSMENT definitions and thresholds for determining the significance 8.2.5.1 Significance A significant effect on vegetation is one that: of effects on plant species and communities. 7.1.7. Riparian, of Residual • threatens the long-term persistence or viability of a plant species or Wetland and Environmental community in the RAA, including Terrestrial Effects from the effects that are contrary to or inconsistent with the goals, objectives or Environments Project activities of recovery strategies, action plans and management plans, published conservation targets, or • results in uncompensated loss of wetland function, or • threatens the long-term availability of traditional-use plants within the RAA. Based on the assessment of the proposed effects of the Project on vegetation and the proposed mitigation measures, the residual effects are considered not significant for landscape diversity, community diversity, species diversity and wetland functions”.

NHCN was not involved in determining how to define significant effects on vegetation or any other valued ecosystem components. The perspectives of Indigenous people do not seem to be reflected in this assessment.

According to the EIS approach, a prediction of extirpation from a large area is required before a decline in populations of species or communities is considered to be important. Since most boreal species of plants are relatively widespread, it is less likely that any impacts would be considered to be significant.

This approach does not capture the concerns NHCN has about degradation of vegetation communities over large areas created by successive projects, especially the cumulative effects on shoreline plant communities.

NHCN - NHCN 7.1.8. 11.12.1 Project The EIS does not include the existing flood control structures and Explain how the EIS provides an understanding of the 25 Migratory Residual Effects operations in the cumulative effects assessment, arguing that current cumulative loss or degradation of wetlands and change in birds and their Likely to Act conditions simply include the effects of past projects. wetland function, including riparian wetlands in the large habitat Cumulatively lakes due to flood control infrastructure in the Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin watershed. 22

There has been long-term concern regarding the effects of water regulation on riparian wetlands in this region. The degradation of the Explain what is understood about the cumulative effects of Delta Marsh is the subject of considerable research and management past projects that have affected wetlands and migratory attention which is focused on the flood control infrastructure and bird habitat including the Portage Diversion and the FRWCS. policies to regulate Lake Manitoba within a range that is more restricted than under natural conditions. Discuss what is known or predicted about the possible long- term effects on riparian wetland habitats of the operational The EIS predicts that “effects on Delta Marsh are not expected as changes policies designed to regulate Lake Manitoba within a in Lake Manitoba water levels are small (2.4 cm or less). narrower range than under natural conditions.

However, the hydrological changes that affect wetlands have to be investigated with consideration for seasonal patterns as well as multi- year patterns. For example, periodic high and low water levels help to rejuvenate certain species in wetlands. The EIS touches on the issue, but requires more discussion of this complex situation in relation to lake level regulation.

The EIS cites studies that report a decline in waterfowl productivity in Lake St. Martin and Lake Pineimuta since operation of the FRWCS began due to the increased variability and higher water levels. This can be related to changes in riparian and aquatic vegetation communities and structure that affect feeding and cover, as well as direct effects of fluctuating water levels on nesting success.

The EIS requires a much more comprehensive approach to assessing the cumulative effects of the existing flood control infrastructure on migratory bird habitat including riparian wetlands. NHCN - NHCN 7. EFFECTS 12.6 VEGETATION The EIS states that: Discuss specifically what can and will be done to 26 ASSESSMENT compensate wetland loss. “Wetland mapping of the LMOC PDA will be evaluated to identify all 7.1.7. Riparian, potentially affected wetlands. Wetland compensation may include What is possible in terms of the quality and characteristics Wetland and wetland creation, and wetland enhancement or restoration. Effectiveness of engineered or restored wetlands in this area? Terrestrial of wetland compensation will be conducted as part of post-construction Environments revegetation monitoring.” Provide relevant examples of wetland creation, enhancement or restoration in Manitoba. Explain how effective these have been in terms of creating functional and diverse habitats that meet the requirements of wetland compensation.

Explain the challenges involved in compensation for loss of wetlands of the magnitude predicted for the LMLSM project.

NHCN - NHCN 7. EFFECTS 8.2 VEGETATION The EIS states: 27 ASSESSMENT Provide a detailed work plan for the remaining work to be 8.2.5.1 Significance “Loss of SOCC and species of interest to Indigenous groups should not done to understand potential effects on vegetation 7.1.7. Riparian, of Residual occur with further pre-construction surveys and Indigenous communities, SOCC and species of interest to Indigenous Wetland and Environmental engagement. Wetland compensation should off-set affects [sic] to groups. Terrestrial Effects from the wetlands.” Environments Project Discuss how it is possible to assess residual effects with the The conclusions presented in the EIS appear to be premature given the level of information that currently exists. number of data gaps identified in the EIS and the field work and Indigenous engagement still to be done. NHCN - NHCN 7. EFFECTS 12.6 VEGETATION The Guidelines require that the proponent: “develop a follow-up program Provide the revegetation plan for the channels if it has been 28 ASSESSMENT to verify the accuracy of the assessment or to dispel the uncertainty developed. concerning the effectiveness of mitigation measures for certain 7.1.7. Riparian, cumulative effects.” What has been learned from revegetation patterns along Wetland and artificial flood channels in other parts of Manitoba? Terrestrial The EIS briefly discusses the intention to design a follow-up and Environments monitoring program for effects on vegetation. There is only vague Are there other channels in Manitoba that are comparable information about monitoring and follow-up, as is the case with most in terms of design, operations and ecosystem context that other VC’s addressed in the EIS. we can learn from? If so, what types of vegetation communities have For example, revegetation of channels to prevent erosion and reestablish developed in those areas? some functional habitat characteristics is mentioned, however there is not enough detail on how this would be done to determine whether the What challenges exist with weed control and invasive residual effects assessment is reasonable. The EIS acknowledges that species and what measures are being used to address these plans for channel revegetation have not been finalized, including desired along other artificial channels? plant species and relative species cover.

Invasive Species

NHCN - NHCN 7. EFFECTS CHAPTER 7 The EIS concludes that the project is unlikely to increase the risk of the Discuss what is understood about the potential for 29 ASSESSMENT BIOPHYSICAL spread of aquatic invasive species into Lake St. Martin and Lake increases in the rate of passage of flood waters into EFFECTS Manitoba. Playgreen Lake and the Nelson River to influence the spread 7.1.6 Aquatic ASSESSMENT ON of invasive species and our ability to control that. Invasive AQUATIC The increased outlet capacity of Lake Winnipeg and the operation of the Species ENVIRONMENT LWR which responds to changes in the inflows to Lake Winnipeg may have an influence on the spread of invasive aquatics. NHCN is concerned Aquatic Invasive about any additional capacity in the flood control system that allows Species flood waters to be flushed more quickly north into the Nelson River.

Zebra mussels are already present in Lake Winnipeg, Playgreen Lake and moving into the Nelson River. This is presenting many challenges to NHCN at the moment and will likely be a long-term concern. The prospects are serious for ecosystems and infrastructure if the problem becomes worse. For example, effects on the community water system intake are of concern as they can be very expensive to deal with.

Wildlife and Species at Risk

NHCN - NHCN 4. Determination of The EIS Guidelines state that: 30 PREPARATION significance criteria Discuss the importance of degradation of wildlife habitat in AND and assessing “The proponent will integrate Indigenous knowledge into all aspects of its the RAA over time and the uncertainty associated with PRESENTATIO significance of assessment including both methodology (e.g. establishing spatial and assessing the significance of cumulative effects of N OF THE residual effects temporal boundaries, defining significance criteria) and analysis (e.g. decreasing wildlife populations on traditional use of lands ENVIRONMEN baseline characterization, effects prediction, development of mitigation by Indigenous people. TAL IMPACT measures) and will clearly describe this integration.” STATEMENT The criteria for determining the significance of residual effects were not 4.2.2.Commun established with any input from NHCN. ity knowledge and The EIS state that: “A significant residual effect on wildlife is defined as Indigenous one that, following the application of mitigation measures, threatens the knowledge long-term persistence or viability of a wildlife species in the RAA.”

This suggests that anything short of extirpation from the RAA would be determined to be not significant.

NHCN - NHCN 7.1.7.Riparian, 11.13 WILDLIFE The EIS reads: Please provide discussion of what is known of the 31 Wetland and cumulative effects of flood control infrastructure on wildlife Terrestrial 11.13.2.3 Residual “Past and present activities and developments have resulted in the loss of habitat in the RAA including the existing FRWCS. Environments Cumulative Effects native grassland, wetland, and forest habitats which has reduced habitat on Change in availability for some species at risk (SAR) and SOCC in the RAA, such as Species at Risk Habitat eastern whip-poor-will, red-headed woodpecker, and bobolink. Overall, agriculture, residential development, resource use, and transportation corridors have altered and fragmented the current regional landscape and contributed to an existing cumulative effect on wildlife in the RAA.”

As with the assessment of other VC’s, the effects of other flood control infrastructure are not mentioned in this description.

NHCN - NHCN 7.1.7.Riparian, Table 11.6-2 One conclusion is that “wetland abundance will be reduced by 0.8% in Provide a description of the planned additional field 32 Wetland and Change in Land the RAA”. programs to support the assessment of changes in land Terrestrial Cover Types in the cover and habitat diversity and SOCC. Environments RAA The level of understanding of the types of wetlands lost, for example the % loss of relatively diverse marsh habitat is recognized in the EIS as weak on some levels. Due to the limited survey data for several areas, broader land cover classes were mapped for example to roughly categorize wetland types. The EIS states that ground truthing was not done for many areas. This is one reason for prediction confidence to be rated as moderate.

It is also indicated in the EIS that additional field surveys are required to gain a better understanding of the presence of SOCC in many areas, and ground truth some of the land cover classification.

NHCN - NHCN 7.1.7.Riparian, 11.13 WILDLIFE The assessment focuses on changes to habitat types as a measure of Discuss what is known about beaver colony density in the 33 Wetland and effects on most wildlife. Wetlands are mapped and categorized at a scale PDA and LAA and the influence on wetland habitat Terrestrial 11.13.2.3 Residual that does not necessarily reflect complex habitats such as those created diversity. Environments Cumulative Effects and occupied by beaver and muskrat. The EIS does mention that there on Change in are numerous beaver dams in the Buffalo Creek area and indicates the Please describe data gaps that limit such assessment. Habitat importance of such wetlands for other species such as waterfowl.

Some discussion of the effects of the EOC on beaver influenced wetlands is included in the EIS.

It would be useful to have more discussion of the potential effect of the project on beaver colonies in the PDA and LAA.

Fish and Fish Habitat NHCN - NHCN 7. Effects 7.2 FISH AND FISH The EIS outlines briefly the numerous data gaps for fish and fish habitat Provide details of the additional data collection program 34 Assessment HABITAT and states that: planned for fish and fish habitat prior to construction.

7.1.5 Fish and 7.2.7 Prediction “Despite the gaps, data were available from most waterbodies in the LAA In what ways will the data likely remain limited and Fish Habitat Confidence and are considered adequate for describing the existing aquatic compromise the analysis of future monitoring data? environment, identifying potential interactions and identifying the avoidance and mitigation measures that would be necessary to limit potential effects on fish and fish habitat. However, additional data will be required, prior to construction, to address potential changes to the Project coming out of detailed design and to ensure that the baseline is adequate for an effective aquatic effects monitoring program.”

NHCN - NHCN 7. Effects 7.2.9.1 Permanent The EIS states that: Discuss what has been learned about the establishment of 35 Assessment Alteration or aquatic vegetation in other artificial flood channels in Destruction of Fish “Over time, aquatic vegetation may become established along the Manitoba if there are any that can be used as reference. 7.1.5 Fish and Habitat margins of the channel.” Fish Habitat What is known about the quality of aquatic vegetation More information about the potential for aquatic vegetation to establish communities in artificial flood channels as habitat for fish? under the predicted physical conditions would be useful. Explain the similarities and differences between the LMLSM channels and any potential reference channels.

NHCN - NHCN 7. Effects 7.2.4.2 Permanent The EIS states that: Discuss whether there is any risk of there being inadequate 36 Assessment Alteration or base flows during dry years and very low flow periods to Destruction of Fish “Pool depths upstream of the drop structures will be sufficient to maintain adequate fish habitat in both the outlet channels 7.1.5 Fish and Habitat maintain a wetted channel upstream to the next drop and the Dauphin and Fairford Rivers. Fish Habitat structure. Together with the channel geometry and drop structures, Mitigation baseflows in the LSMOC will limit variations in water levels in the LSMOC Discuss further the extent to which the provision of base when not in use and allow a stationary, lake-type ice cover to flows to the channels will ensure fish habitat of a quality form on the channel without freezing to the bottom. Groundwater and function that will offset the permanent alteration or seepage is also expected to augment these baseflows along the channel destruction of fish habitat. length.” Include discussion of the uncertainties associated with these predictions. 27

One concern is the quality of fish habitat that the channels can provide, and another is what will be the effect on the Fairford and Dauphin Rivers of ensuring adequate base flows in the channels during low flow periods.

The EIS states that modelling has not been done to estimate the effect on the river outlets of providing base flows. There are of course many uncertainties associated with this including ground water inflows into the channels.

Table 6.4-18 “Changes in Dauphin River Flows” provides the results of modelling changes in flows in the Dauphin River with and without the LMLSM outlet channels under low, medium and high flow scenarios.

The EIS reports estimated average outlet channel flows in Table 6E-2 Average Monthly Lake Water Levels and OC channel Flows.

NHCN - NHCN 7. Effects 11.11 FISH AND Discuss what is understood about the past and current 37 Assessment FISH HABITAT The Guidelines state that: effects of the FRWCS on fish and fish habitat. “Water management systems and natural and/or controlled flood events, 7.1.5 Fish and 11.11.1 Project including flooding that occurred in the Interlakes Region in 2011, should Where uncertainty exists, discuss probably pathways of Fish Habitat Residual Effects be considered as projects or activities that are sources of potential effect. Explain data gaps more clearly. Likely to Act cumulative effects.” 7.6.3 Cumulatively Discuss what can be understood about the cumulative Cumulative The Fairford River Water Control Structure is not included in the list of effects on fish and fish habitat of the FRWCS along with the Effects projects that may have cumulative effects along with the LMLSM LMLSM project. Assessment channels. Discuss uncertainties associated with the decline in walleye The EIS explains that: spawning in the Dauphin River and potential linkages with “Residual effects of past and present projects have already been included the operation of the FRWCS. in the existing conditions for fish and fish habitat and have been assessed for their potential to interact with the Project in the fish and fish habitat effects assessment (Chapter 7). Therefore, potential residual effects of the Project are only assessed for their potential to interact cumulatively with future projects.”

However, there is insufficient information and analysis in the EIS to understand the range of effects on fish and fish habitat already created by the Fairford River Water Control Structure which has been in operation since 1961.

Some discussion of studies of fish use and movement in the Fairford River is included in the EIS in the section Fairford River and Inlet Area. However, the section provides limited discussion of the effects of the FRWCS.

Some mention is made of possible pathways of effect on fish due to the FRWCS:

“The fish affected are already disturbed by passage over the FRWCS.”

“According to Katapodis et al. (1991), commercial fishers on Lake Manitoba expressed concerns as early as 1963 that walleye were leaving Lake Manitoba through the Fairford River and were unable to return because of inadequate fish passage. However, evidence to support this assertion is not strong as commercial catches of walleye in Lake Manitoba had been declining since 1950, 10 years prior to construction of the FRWCS.”

TRADITIONAL LAND AND RESOURCE USE

NHCN - NHCN 7.6.3 11.18 The EIS states that: Provide a comprehensive discussion of what is understood 38 Cumulative TRADITIONAL about the effects of the FRWCS on traditional land and Effects LAND AND “The Project is anticipated to cause residual effects to traditional land resource use. Refer to all relevant available studies and Assessment RESOURCE USE and resource use (TLRU), including to availability of traditional lands and traditional knowledge. resources for current use, by changes in access to lands and traditional 11.18.1 Project resources for current use, by changes to cultural and spiritual sites or Residual Effects areas, and by changes to the cultural value or importance associated with Likely to Act current use. “ Cumulatively As with other VC’s, the EIS does not include the FRWCS in the list of projects that would interact with the LMLSM project in contribution to cumulative effects on traditional land and resource use because as with other VC’s it argues that past projects are already taken into account in the documentation of baseline information.

This argument is faulty and inconsistent for several reasons including:

a. The cumulative effects assessment is intended to increase understanding of changes in the environmental caused by multiple projects. To this end, more comprehensive analysis and discussion of the FRWCS within the context of cumulative effects is required. b. The operation of the FRWCS is variable over time and will change with the LMLSM channels project. c. Other past projects are included on the list of other projects or physical activities identified for consideration in the cumulative environmental effects assessment for this EIA - Table 11.1-1. d. The reference point for cumulative effects of water control infrastructure for Indigenous Peoples is the pre-FRWCS period.

Despite the fact that there was no formal environmental assessment done prior to these earlier projects, the specific influence of the FRWCS and other projects on the natural environment needs to be considered and acknowledged. There is a body of Indigenous knowledge based on observations of the changes that have occurred. This is touched on in the EIS, however is not explained adequately to give the reader an understanding of the impacts.

Cumulative Effects Assessment NHCN - NHCN 7.6.3. Chapter 11.0 The Guidelines ask the proponent to “identify and provide a rationale for Conduct a cumulative effects assessment that includes the 39 Cumulative CUMULATIVE the VCs that will constitute the focus of the cumulative effects upstream and downstream flood control infrastructure that effects EFFECTS assessment, focusing the cumulative effects assessment on the VCs most both necessitates and makes allowable the construction of assessment likely to be affected by the project and other projects and activities.” the LSMLM outlet channels.

Scope and RAA “These cumulative effects boundaries will also generally be larger than Include discussion of the operation of the Portage the boundaries for the corresponding project effects. At a minimum, Diversion, Assiniboine River water control works, and LWR cumulative effects for each applicable VC should be considered for Lake with sufficient detail for the reader to understand how the Manitoba, Lake St. Martin, and Lake Winnipeg respectively.” flood control infrastructure works together under various scenarios, and what is understood about the effects on “Specify other projects or activities that have been or that are likely to be identified VC’s as well as VC’s further identified through carried out that could cause effects on each selected VC within the engagement with NHCN and others. 30

boundaries defined, and whose effects would act in combination with the residual effects of the project. Water management systems and natural Identify the areas of uncertainty that make such an and/or controlled flood events, including flooding that occurred in the assessment challenging. Interlakes Region in 2011, should be considered as projects or activities that are sources of potential cumulative effects.”

The influence of the diversions from the Assiniboine River during high water years on flooding in the Interlake region, on water quality, fish and fish habitat, wetland and riparian habitats, debris transport, and land use are major concerns which should have been addressed in this EIS.

Government Policy and management decisions on flood control over time have had a significant influence on environmental conditions in the LMLSM region, and the broader watershed as a whole. They influence the extent to which additional major flood control infrastructure is found to be necessary in various parts of the system.

The influence of land use decisions in upstream regions of the watershed such as continued drainage of agricultural fields; degradation of wetlands; exclusion of beavers; development of infrastructure on flood plains necessitating flood protection; and application of phosphate fertilizers, etc. all have the potential to influence the magnitude of floods, the resulting operation of flood control infrastructure and the quality of water moving through the system. These are classic examples of cumulative effects that can alter downstream environmental conditions.

For example, the strategy to increase the capacity of the Portage Diversion to provide additional flood protection to the Assiniboine River may not be possible without the proposed LMLSM outlet channels, otherwise the flooding in these lakes will be further exacerbated. The Lake Winnipeg Regulation (LWR) infrastructure in turn allows flood waters to be channeled more quickly into the lake from all southern inflows with less lasting effect. This is due to the 50% increased outflow capacity and the ability to control most of the outflow. However, the effects of these multiple flood control works are experienced as cumulative downstream on Playgreen Lake and the Nelson River.

One cumulative effect on the Nelson River and its lake expansions as they respond to flood control works and hydroelectric production upstream is

the increased variability in water levels and divergence from natural seasonal patterns which creates myriad changes in wildlife habitat, traditional land use and the cultural landscape.

An understanding of this context, however complex, is necessary to inform a cumulative effects assessment of the LMLSM outlet channels project.

NHCN - NHCN 7.6.3. Chapter 11.0 In the Guidelines, cumulative effects are defined as changes to the Explain the plans for upgrades to the Portage Diversion and 40 Cumulative CUMULATIVE environment due to the project combined with the existence of other the effect this could have on the need for and operation of effects EFFECTS past, present, and reasonably foreseeable physical activities. the LMLSM outlet channels either in the context of direct or assessment cumulative effects assessment. Upgrades to the Portage Diversion as described in the 2016 KGS report appear to be reasonably foreseeable. If formal plans are not yet on the table, explain what upgrades are desirable to create the most efficient flood control system according to the 2016 KGS studies. NHCN - NHCN 7.6.3. Chapter 11.0 Discuss what is understood regarding the past and 41 Cumulative CUMULATIVE The Guidelines require that “Effects of past activities (activities that have continued effects of all flood control works and land use effects EFFECTS been carried out) will be used to contextualize the current state of the practices affecting run-off in the broader watershed on the assessment VC.” Interlake region.

The existing flood control infrastructure and land use decisions in the Clearly identify areas of uncertainty that may influence our watershed have had acknowledged effects on water quality, wetlands understanding of the current state of each VC. and riparian habitats, wildlife, migratory birds, traditional land use.

There is insufficient information and analysis provided in the EIS to understand this influence. NHCN - NHCN 7.6.3. Chapter 11.0 The Guidelines ask that “In assessing the cumulative effects on current In order to meet the requirements of CEAA 2012, there 42 Cumulative CUMULATIVE use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, the assessment will must be a comprehensive research process developed with effects EFFECTS focus on the cumulative effects on the relevant activity (e.g. hunting, all of the Indigenous groups that have experienced assessment fishing, trapping, plant harvesting).” cumulative effects of the flood control infrastructure that influences and would be influenced by the LMLSM outlet There was no engagement process that allowed NHCN to examine the channels project. proposed project, investigate and explain the extent to which hunting, fishing, trapping and plant harvesting in the region has been affected by major flood and hydroelectric infrastructure in this watershed and may or may not be further affected by the LMLSM channels. This information is therefore not included in the EIS.

The context is that hunting, fishing, trapping, and plant harvesting have been degraded throughout the region due to the cumulative effects of industrial and urban development and increased human populations. Artificial manipulation of the waterways in addition to the terrestrial footprint of multiple flood control and hydroelectric works has had an extensive and significant influence on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by all Indigenous groups in the region.

NHCN - NHCN 7.6.3. Chapter 11.0 The Guidelines state that: The proponent must engage NHCN and all other potentially 43 Cumulative CUMULATIVE affected Indigenous Peoples in a meaningful process to effects EFFECTS “The proponent is encouraged to consult with key stakeholders and discuss VC’s, cumulative effects boundaries, and all assessment Indigenous groups prior to finalizing the choice of VCs and the outstanding concerns related to water management in appropriate boundaries to assess cumulative effects. This engagement Manitoba, for flood protection and hydroelectric should address, but not be limited to, concerns raised to date regarding production. cumulative effects that are associated with water management in Manitoba, for flood protection, hydroelectric, and other purposes, and There must be transparent consultation on the current and the current and future regulation of flows through water control future regulation of flows through water control structures structures upstream and downstream of the Project.” upstream and downstream of the Project.

NHCN were not engaged in a process to establish the RAA or discuss final VC’s in any comprehensive way. Some basic information was shared, and a group meeting was held that did not proceed beyond an introductory level. NHCN - NHCN 7.6.3. The Guidelines ask the proponent to: 44 Cumulative What is the regulatory environment with regards to new effects “describe the mitigation measures that are technically and economically and existing artificial drainage works that reduce floodplain assessment feasible. The proponent shall assess the effectiveness of the measures retention in Manitoba and Saskatchewan? applied to mitigate the cumulative effects. In cases where measures exist that are beyond the scope of the proponent’s responsibility that could be What is understood about trends in the rates of artificial effectively applied to mitigate these effects, the proponent will identify drainage works in agricultural fields? these effects and the parties that have the authority to act. In such cases, the EIS will summarize the discussions that took place with the other Discuss measures that are being implemented to increase parties in order to implement the necessary measures over the long floodplain retention in southern Manitoba and term.” Saskatchewan.

The 2016 KGS study discusses the importance of combined approaches to flood control including adjusting land use practices for better flood

attenuation. Such landscape level measures could influence the capacity needed for new flood control infrastructure and future operations.

Public Communications and Presentation of Information

NHCN - NHCN 4.5. Summary 2-pager The short information sheets that are available on the MIT website are Revise and edit the 2-pager information sheets to correct 45 of the information sheets useful for summarizing for broad readership, the environmental effects typos and inaccuracies. environmental of the LMLSM Channels predicted to date. impact Include information, perhaps a separate sheet with the statement However, there are some editing issues which could be easily corrected, Project Description and Justification that explains the and the pages reposted to the website. relationship of this flood control infrastructure to the system throughout southern Manitoba. For example: • The Vegetation page follow-up and monitoring section is the text from the atmospheric environment page. • The Wildlife page mentions red-headed woodpeckers a couple of times and includes a photo of a pileated woodpecker. That could be changed to avoid confusion among budding birders.